Got to agree with DD on this one.

He does indeed have the right to his own opinion, but not the right to express it in public. There is a very clear DIN (can't give you the number off hand) which states that all attributable comments in any form of media must be cleared by the MoD first. There was quite a who-ha on ARRSE when this first came out, as to whether those still serving could voice their opinions, even if anonymously. That makes yet another Reg that he has broken, but I suspect that this will get ignored somehow.

Gunner Vic Williams got 14 months for desertion after GW1, I doubt that this tool will get the same somehow. More to the pity.

Gremlin...Please read my reply to DD again, i stated the same as you, but in this PC world gone mad where the military has to be seen to be fair and open in all it's procedures, the army will not want to look like bully's to the outside world. Consequently, anything like this will be treated as a hot potato and sorted PDQ!! I'm not saying what he has done is right, far from it, just that in the world today any sign of pressure on him by the military will be jumped all over by the left wing press and put out of context for their own political agenda's. Whilst at the same time putting the military in a bad light and giving succor to the anti war lobby!

I've had bigger shites.

Mr Glenton is welcome to contact me, with a visiting order from Chelmsford.

Sit back and relax.

Originally Posted by wedge35

Dear Joe,

As you are a Lance Corporal in the Royal Logistic Corps and I was Sapper in the Royal Engineers, I thought I would write to you, junior soldier to junior soldier and let you know my thoughts on the actions you are currently taking. I have no idea why you originally decided to go AWOL from the army but I went AWOL once as well – for no particularly dramatic reason – and, like you, I have also deployed on operations (in my case, to Bosnia and Iraq). I like to think that I am reasonably well informed and as you are obviously an intelligent man, I hope that you will listen to what I have to say with an open mind.

You have said on many occasions that the war in Afghanistan is illegal, and some of the people you have chosen to side with on this issue have supported and applauded your stance, whilst likening the arguments of those members of the armed forces who have concerns about the campaign in Afghanistan but who continue to serve to the infamous Nuremburg Defence – ‘I was only following orders’. This issue is worth examining in some detail as it highlights a number of points that I believe fatally weaken the position that you have taken.

All soldiers are bound by the Law of Armed Conflict and, as you will know, all members of the British armed forces receive training in this area, both during normal annual training and immediately prior to an operational deployment. As junior soldiers, we have a clear obligation to refuse to carry out illegal orders, be they those that may break the Geneva Convention or those that conflict with theatre-specific rules of engagement. Professional soldiers have both a moral and legal responsibility to recognise when an order is illegal and an absolute obligation to refuse such orders; no one in the armed forces from the Chief of the General Staff to the most junior teenage Private could argue against that point and, indeed, all share a responsibility to be familiar with the Law of Armed Conflict as in applies ‘on the ground’. However, as ordinary soldiers, our competence in the matter only goes so far.

As far as questions of the legality of any particular conflict are concerned, we must rely on the decisions of those who are qualified to judge, meaning the legal establishment headed by the Attorney General and the democratically-elected Government of the day. To take an example from the ‘Nuremburg era’, individual junior soldiers and officers cannot be held accountable for joining the German army or for their Government’s decision to invade the Soviet Union. That was – as the army saying has it – far above their pay scale. However, if that soldier, whilst taking part in Operation Barbarossa, obeyed an order to shoot a Soviet civilian, he would make himself a war criminal, entirely responsible for his actions. The distinction between the two is clear.

This leads us on, Joe, to personal conscience and how that applies to us as junior soldiers. Whatever those that you currently choose to associate with may tell you, we live in a democratic country and, furthermore, one that does not practice conscription. Everyone who serves in the armed forces does so on a voluntary basis, without compulsion, and with a clear understanding of what they signed-up for. I did, you did and the nine thousand British troops currently in Afghanistan did as well. Anyone who decides that they disagree with the direction the country’s foreign policy is taking or, in light of their personal experiences decides that they no longer wish to be part of the profession of arms, can give one year’s notice and leave. They do not, however, gain the right to pick and choose which operations they deploy on whilst still serving – and for a very good reason. A military coup is unimaginable in Britain precisely because the army does not question its orders except at a level where people are qualified to do so. Your friends in the Stop the War movement would do well to think about where having an army of free-thinkers could lead – there would be some soldiers like yourself who’s views they would applaud to the rooftops but plenty of others who would enjoy nothing so much as to put them on the point of a bayonet. Societies with such armies do exist but thankfully Britain is not one of them. Were every soldier to follow your example, however, it would swiftly become one and under such circumstances we could all kiss our freedom goodbye. Be careful what you wish for.

Finally, Joe, let us forget for a moment that you are a serving soldier and treat your case as simply that of a citizen exercising his freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Take a look, if you would, at some of the people that are currently shouting themselves hoarse in support of your stance. Whilst there are many good and sincere people in the Stop the War movement, there are also those who represent the left-wing equivalent of the British National Party; tendencies, factions and Parties who would soak the country in blood as surely as would any fascist party, were they to gain power. How much freedom of conscience or freedom of speech do you think the Socialist Worker’s Party would be willing to grant you on any issue where you find yourself at odds with their point of view? In choosing to align yourself with such people for short term exposure, you have sided with the kind of totalitarian militant who uses peace as the basis of glib placard slogan and as a means to an end that I would hope you do not share. What do you imagine the fate of a Cuban soldier would be, were he to do what you have done?

Joe, by your recent actions you have crossed from fulfilling your own moral code to giving comfort and succour to the enemy. You have gone from being someone that I could not agree with but certainly sympathise with, to someone who has betrayed his former colleagues, some of whom share your doubts and many of whom are currently numb with fear in the place you refused to go. Stop whilst you can. I share your liberal mind-set in many ways and, having witnessed the results of war at first hand, share your disgust at what conflict can mean in reality. But despite what those around you may say, you are not a hero. You are close to becoming a traitor – not to any abstract notion like the State, but to those who wear the same uniform as you and who you claim to care about.

Joe: not in my name.

Yours,

D***y C******ne

Bravo zulu from a septic--well done.

stacker1 & Fugly: agree. see below.

TalaveraTom: disagree. he doesn't have the right to communicate with the media unless cleared through the CoC. he doesn't have the right to free speech like a civvy. oh, and screw the anti-war lobby. we work for Her Majesty, not them.

wedge35: excellent letter. however, i feel you have taken a tack which reinforces the impression that this clown is a conscientious objector, because you fail to mention the "elephant in the room" voiced by stacker1 and Fugly.

this guy is a coward. he went AWOL for two years: any mention during that time of an illegal war? any publicity? nope, only when facing punishment on his return to the UK. he may or may not have gone AWOL because he was scared of deploying again - i know what i believe, we've probably all seen guys have the occasional wobble about going on ops.

this "illegal war" stance - it's a convenient excuse; it's retrospective justification. "oh dear, i'm for it now. rather than admit i was shitting bricks about going back on ops at some point in the future, and rather than simply signing off if i claim i genuinely disagreed with this 'illegal war'... i will now, after two years AWOL, try to reduce my punishment and improve my self-esteem by claiming it was a principled stand against government policy."

bollocks. if you are reading this, Glenton... you know, when you go to bed at night, what the truth is. I have seen principled objections to deployments before; your actions bear no resemblance. you are simply a coward, utterly lacking in moral fibre, who went AWOL. when your actions caught up with you, you then compounded your cowardice by dragging the name of the British Army down with your association with the "Stop the War" mob. you may occasionally forget the real reason you did this - fear of imprisonment - with your letters to the PM and publicity-whore status. you may be able to fool elements friendly to your "cause", that you are a conscientious objector and that is why you went AWOL: "it was all in protest." was it bollocks.

every soldier and ex-soldier can see through your pathetic facade in a second. you went AWOL, and this is a piss-poor attempt to salvage some self-respect by trying to assign some dignified motive to your cowardice and lack of professionalism.

man up, stop acting like a twat, and take your punishment like the soldier you claim to be. you might actually get some respect from your former colleagues for finally being honest about your motives.

and to the CM - i firmly believe that jailing this morally bankrupt specimen would see you applauded by every single serving soldier and officer. screw the press, screw the solicitors, screw the STM movement: he went AWOL and deserves to be punished. the aggravating factors merit the strongest punishment possible. so please send the snivelling wretch to jail to think about the error of his ways; you'll probably get dozens of pages of congratulations on Arrse, for standing up to this subversive, cowardly little shite.

Jail the cunt?

He needs shooting.

Didn't see me, can't prove a thing.

Nice post CR, I wholeheartedly agree; but have a quick word with yourself as you are starting to be sensible again.......it just won't do you know! :D

Originally Posted by TalaveraTom

Gremlin...Please read my reply to DD again, i stated the same as you........

I did read your reply, but after I submitted mine. We were posting at the same time but I took quite a while trying to find the DIN number and checking the GW1 data!

I still stand by remarks vis-a-vis free thought but no free speech though. I sadly suspect that you are right in assuming that this will get brushed under the carpet, but as far as I am concerned this lowlife did not go AWOL, he deserted which is a far more serious matter, and he deserves to have the book thrown at him (and by book I mean the full copy of QRs in the hardback version!).

CR.
Again somebody who hasn't bothered to read the post properly...Read it again, i stated the same thing myself, no he doesn't have the right to say what he likes but how are you going to stop him??? Then when you've stopped him how are you going to enforce your punishment without looking bad in the public eye? Don't try and tell me that it doesn't matter what they think, because it does! Otherwise we'd still be dragging people round the back of the Dutch barn for a dig, rather than have them tapping the boards in front of the BC. A far more expensive option all round!...Anyway that's enough from me.

CR - you are right, of course, but I deliberately avoided that particular issue to try to focus on the arguments he used on the ant-war demo yesterday and elsewhere. Far too many life-long civvies seem to think that a) soldiers are responsible for the operations they deploy on and b) issues of conscience mean that soldiers should opt out of anything they find personally distasteful. It was intended to address such people as well as 'L/Cpl' Glenton as I'm sick to death of lazy comparisons to Nuremburg etc. You make a good point, however, and it's something else he could do with facing up to...

Originally Posted by TalaveraTom

CR.
Again somebody who hasn't bothered to read the post properly...Read it again, i stated the same thing myself, no he doesn't have the right to say what he likes but how are you going to stop him??? Then when you've stopped him how are you going to enforce your punishment without looking bad in the public eye? Don't try and tell me that it doesn't matter what they think, because it does! Otherwise we'd still be dragging people round the back of the Dutch barn for a dig, rather than have them tapping the boards in front of the BC. A far more expensive option all round!...Anyway that's enough from me.

i did read it properly. yes, you said that, but you also said:

Originally Posted by TalaveraTom

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

Originally Posted by TalaveraTom

I'm afraid ladies and gents that this bloke has the right to an opinion, whether we agree or not!

No he's not. One of the sacrafices we make when we sign the dotted line is to surrender our right to free speech and ackowledge that we will do what the Army wants, when the Army wants (as long as it's legal)

DD...What a load of Gonads!! Where did you get that idea from? You show me where it states that i have given away my right to free speech, just because i signed on the dotted line?

whereupon you were pointed at the DIN about contact with the media etc. glenton is not causing a problem by what he thinks; he is causing a problem by what he says and does in the public eye.

as for the army being concerned with "looking bad in the public eye" if they punish him for going AWOL / Sect 69 / disobeying an order - don't you think the maintenance of military discipline is more important than what a bunch of anti-war protesters think / say? would you like those floodgates opened every time some scrote goes AWOL because he doesn't like the army any more... then says "i was making a political protest" when he's caught again?

i think the little twat should be made an example of. that decision would have the backing of most serving and ex-personnel. if the peace protesters don't like it, they can... erm... protest. as is their right.

glenton simply can not be allowed to get away with this. no matter how much he has tried to muddy the waters since his return from AWOL - he broke the law. he has continued to break military law. he must be punished. end of.

the only reason he jumped on this "anti war" bandwagon is that it represents his best chance of getting a lighter sentence. his solicitor said he feared being imprisoned for an extended period for being AWOL.

you shouldn't be taken in by his ridiculous smokescreen. he can try as many deception plans as he wants. if he had announced his anti-war agenda to the media when he went AWOL, instead of when he was facing punishment for it two years later... he might have some credibility.

as i said earlier - retrospective justification for somebody trying to avoid punishment. send the snivelling little turd to jail for being AWOL, bringing the army into disrepute, disobeying the DIN, and anything else he has done (e.g. disobeying his CO, if that report was correct).

if all that smoke is getting in the way, switch to thermal and it becomes a clear picture again. jail him.